Skip to comments.The Scandal of Jesusí Birth
Posted on 12/26/2012 12:21:18 PM PST by HarleyD
At Christmas we celebrate Jesus birth because no more important human being has ever been born. Jesus is the first-born of all creation, the one individual for whom everything else exists. Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, who will rule the coming age as our sovereign ruler. Jesus is more than just a man; he is the translation of the very nature and sovereignty of God Himself into human formthe image of the invisible God, the fullness of God dwelling in human form. Jesus is the supreme prophet, the one whom God sent into the world to reveal to us and explain to us the meaning of our own existence, the purposes and promises of God, and the good news of Gods plan to grant Life to undeserving man. Jesus is our true high priest, who alone can enter into the very presence of God and represent us to God, just as he alone can represent God to us. Jesus is our advocate, who will plead with God to extend mercy to us, asking that God not give us what we deserve but instead that He would give us Life in the final age. In this sense, Jesus is Life for us; without him the destiny of every last one of us would be death and destruction. Finally, Jesus is our propitiatory offering, who willingly and heroically allowed God, his Father, to pour upon him the wrath that you and I deserve because of our moral perversity. As Jesus himself put it, he died for our sins. And in so doing, he was giving himself up as a costly offering to God, appealing to God to be merciful toward us who identify with and embrace Jesus appeal to God for mercy.
All of this became a reality and entered into history when the baby Jesus was born in a shelter for livestock over two thousand years ago in Bethlehem. I want to focus here, however, on Jesus willingness to suffer wrath on our behalf.
Christians speak of the scandal of the cross. On the cross, Jesus died the death that a sinner deserves. On the cross, Jesus was presented as unrighteous. On the cross, Jesus was heaped with shame and reproach. On the cross, the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Master over the whole universe, became an ordinary, petty, mean, and disgusting sinner. On the cross, the Son of God became me; he got what I deserve. Herein lies the scandal: on the cross, the King of glory became the epitome of shame and disgrace. And it is in the face of Jesus shame and dishonor that I am to confess, acknowledge, and praise him as the King of glory.
How much easier our faith would be if the Son of God had appeared to be what he was. Why didnt the King of kings come wearing a crown instead of the stitchless, one-piece garment of a peasant? Why didnt the Son of God come from an aristocratic family in Jerusalem? Why did he come from an obscure family in an obscure village in the least respected region of the Jews? Why did he not come from a rich, famous, and powerful family of influence? And most importantly, why didnt the Messiah come in victory? Why was his last fully public act a humiliating defeat at the hands of the power of Rome? This is the scandal of the cross: that the most powerful and exalted creature in Gods created reality should appear to end the time of his visit in weakness, shame, and humiliating defeat.
We can only understand such an odd and ironic fact by understanding that our King chose to join us in our shame. The shame of the cross was not Jesus shame; it was our shame. But he took it on himself. The humiliation he endured was not his humiliation; it was ours. But he took it on himself. The pain, the sorrow, the punishment, the condemnationnone of it was his; it was ours. But he took it on himself to make an appeal to God for mercy on our behalf. As righteous and pure and perfectly good as Jesus was, he willingly shared the shame and dishonor of our unrighteousness in order that Gods purpose to save us might be fulfilled.
It is interesting, therefore, that the narrative of Jesus birth anticipated in a small way Jesus act of joining us in our shame. Let me explain.
Probably because of the cultural importance we place on Christmas, seldom do we mention how scandalous the birth of Jesus had to be. Among the many ironies of the incarnation is the irony that the Son of God came into the world in such a way that it could not help but be scandalous. He began his life among us with scandal just as surely as he ended it with scandal. Not only is there the scandal of the cross, but there is also the scandal of the birth.
God did not appear to the whole village of Nazarethlet alone the whole nation of Israelto announce the miraculous conception of a baby destined to be the Son of God. No, God sent the angel Gabriel with a private message for one young womans ears only. Surely God understood the implications of what He was doing and how He was doing it. He was setting Mary up for scandal. What rational person would not justifiably conclude that a young pregnant woman who was betrothed but unmarried had been sexually unrighteous? God could have prevented that. He could have let the whole village in on the secret. He could have vindicated Mary by making it clear to everyone that He, the Creator of the universe, was responsible for her pregnancy. But He did not. He left her in a condition where shame and dishonor in the eyes of her neighbors would be the inevitable result. Why did God do that?
I can only speculate, of course. But I have to wonder whether God was not setting up an act that would anticipate what was to come. To understand this, we have to look at the most neglected figure in the Nativity story: Joseph.
The chronology of the events around Jesus birth is incomplete, and so it is difficult to give an exact, detailed account of what happened when. What follows is my best reconciliation of the accounts in Matthew and Luke.
An angel announces to Zacharias that he and his wife Elizabeth will have a son in their old age. Their son will be the forerunner who will prepare the way for the coming Messiah. Six months into Elizabeths pregnancy with the baby who would become John the Baptist, the angel comes privately to Elizabeths young cousin Mary and informs her that she will supernaturally conceive a child who will be the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Almost immediately, Mary travels to visit Elizabeth for about three months. Probably after the birth of John, Mary, then three months pregnant, returns to her home in Nazareth where her family and Joseph, the man to whom she is betrothed, await her. In all likelihood, none of the people in Nazarethincluding Joseph and her own familyare yet aware that Mary is pregnant.
The next thing we know, Joseph and Mary are required by the census of Caesar Augustus to relocate to Bethlehem. Where this move falls in the chronology of events is not clear. The most likely reading of the gospel accounts is that their journey to Bethlehem happens shortly after Marys return from Elizabeths home. If so, then Mary leaves Nazareth with Joseph before any of her family and neighbors know of her pregnancy. And, indeed, it may very well be that Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem before Joseph knows that Mary is pregnant, four or five months before the baby Jesus will be born. This scenario is different from the one our traditional Christmas cards depict, but it seems to be a likely reading of the two gospel accounts.
If my chronology is right, then Bethlehem is the arena for the scandal surrounding Mary and Joseph. Put yourself in the shoes of Mary and Josephs new neighbors. A young couple, betrothed but not yet married, arrives in Bethlehem for the census. Three to four months laterthe couple still unmarriedit becomes obvious that the young woman is pregnant. Whatever one might conclude does not look good for Mary. Perhaps both Mary and Joseph have been sexually immoral, but certainly Mary has played the sinner.
At this point, Josephs choices and actions become important. We do not know how he learns of Marys pregnancy. Perhaps he did not know until Mary could no longer hide it. Perhaps, in anticipation, Mary finally had to tell him. However he found out, now he knew; and he was faced with a choice. I assume that Mary would have tried to tell Joseph the truth, but under the circumstances, believing Marys story that she had supernaturally conceived the Son of God was not a rational option for Joseph. It was far more likely that Mary had been sexually immoral than that such a unique miracle had occurred. So, Joseph was left with three rational options. (1) He could publicly accuse Mary of sexual immorality and make a public scene of releasing her from their betrothal contract. This option would have put Mary in great jeopardy because the penalty for adultery was death by stoning. (2) Joseph could join Mary in her shame and dishonor and simply proceed with the marriage. Everyone would assume that the two of them had been sexually inappropriate, even though Joseph knew that he had not been. But he could choose to protect Mary and keep her from harm by joining her in her shame and dishonor. The problem with this second option is that it did not honor righteousness. It would entail Josephs winking at sexual immorality, treating it as if it were no big deal, which is something Joseph could not do, for, as Matthew tells us, Joseph was a righteous man. (3) Matthew tells us that Joseph chose the third possible optionnamely, he would respect the Law with regard to sexual righteousness while being as kind as possible to Mary. Thus he opted to break his betrothal to a woman whoas far as he knewhad demonstrated herself a Law-breaker; but he opted to do so privately and quietly, in a way that would minimize the negative impact on her.
At least, that is what Joseph had opted to do before God came to him in a dream and verified Marys story. Mary had not broken the Law. Mary had not been sexually immoral. God had chosen Mary for a unique and special role: to conceive and give birth to the King of kings while she was still a virgin. The divine instruction to Joseph was to take Mary as his wife. We have to understand, however, what God was asking of Joseph. In effect, God was asking Joseph to join Mary in her shame. She was not to bear the inevitable shame and dishonor alone; he was to join her in bearing it. He was to take Mary as his wife with the inevitable result that their Bethlehem neighbors would believe that the stigma of sexual immorality rested on them both. Joseph had not been sexually immoral; no stigma should justly fall on him. But God asked him to volunteer willingly to bear the perceived sin of Mary on himself, even though it was not his sin. Joseph did just as God instructed. His act was kind, gracious, and heroic. He could have chosen to put his own honor ahead of compassion and separated himself from Marys shame. But he did not. He chose to bear willingly and heroically Marys shame along with her, even though it did not justly belong to him.
Note how interestingly Josephs choice anticipated one of the most heroic choices that Jesus would perform. The father, Joseph, heroically joined Mary in her shame. The son, Jesus, would one day heroically join every one of us in our shame, when he voluntarily chose his death on the cross. God so orchestrated the events surrounding Jesus birth that Josephs act, in its own small way, anticipated the heroic act that his son would be called upon to perform. In order for Gods saving purposes to be fulfilled, Joseph mercifully had to join a sinner in her shame; he had to bear her shame along with her. Josephs act is exactly analogous to the central act of Gods saving purposes in world history: Jesus mercifully joined us sinners in our shame; he bore our shame along with us.
Without Jesus heroic act, there would be no salvation. But at the first Christmas, in his own small way, Joseph had to make that same heroic choice first. That is the glory of this season. For at Christmas we celebrate the scandal-shrouded birth of the hero whom God sent into the world to join us in the scandal of our sin so that we might Live and not be destroyed.
Copyright December 2007 by McKenzie Study Center, an institute of Gutenberg College.
... Then said they to Him, We be not born of fornication; ...
Guess they must have missed that passage in Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6.
Thanks for posting.
I’ve read that passage and most commentators say the passage is unclear. One way it could be interpreted is the Jewish leaders are referring to Christ’s birth. Another way is the Jewish leaders are referring to themselves. As with other such passages, perhaps it has a duo purpose.
They’re saying that they knew Mary was pregnant before Joseph married her. The time of His birth didn’t synch with the wedding.
Therefore, they accused His parents (or so they think) of being fornicators before they were married. They simply did not comprehend the Holy Ghost overshadowing Mary.
And of course, later we see they, or many of them, knew Who He was and were simply trying to fight Him for some odd reason (hence His accusation that they were of the Devil).
An exception being Nicodemus who turned out to be sincere.
Anybody who believes Christ on the Cross was to receive shame doesn’t understand the Gospel message.
Yes, they did miss it. And I suspect that, had we lived in 1st century Palestine, we would have missed it, too. We can thank God that we live 2000 years later when so much of what is understood about Jesus is settled.
Perhaps we ought to ask God what part of his message that webeing sinners like the Phariseesare missing today.
Keep in mind it wasn’t called “Palestine” until Rome renamed it after the Jewish revolt in 135 A.D. — more than 100 years after Jesus.
They renamed it “Syria-Palestini” (sp).
You are correct, the Romans did rename the land. Nonetheless my point remains the same:
Yes, they did miss it. And I suspect that, had we lived in 1st century Jerusalem, we would have missed it, too. We can thank God that we live 2000 years later when so much of what is understood about Jesus is settled.
Perhaps we ought to ask God what part of his message that webeing sinners like the Phariseesare missing today.
Okay. I don't understand your comment. The shameful nature of death on the cross has always been central to my understanding. Not that Christ deserved that shame (I do) but that he suffered that for "the sake of the joy set before him." (Heb. 12:2)
Yet Crabtree says, 'In all likelihood, none of the people in Nazarethincluding Joseph and her own familyare yet aware that Mary is pregnant.'
I beg to differ, and very much doubt that Mary left to visit her cousin Elizabeth without Joseph first hearing from the Angel of the Lord - most likely within mere hours of Mary's own visitation.
To be fair neither did Mary or Joseph until an Angel explained it to them personally.
Interesting to think what it was a like for him for years afterwards, living with boy who was not his son, but actually God incarnate, and with a woman who (though herself being perplexed, "turning things over in her heart"), lived in fidelity to the Holy Spirit, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal, Who, overshadowing, espoused her.
re: “He was setting Mary up for scandal. What rational person would not justifiably conclude that a young pregnant woman who was betrothed but unmarried had been sexually unrighteous? God could have prevented that. He could have let the whole village in on the secret. He could have vindicated Mary by making it clear to everyone that He, the Creator of the universe, was responsible for her pregnancy. But He did not. He left her in a condition where shame and dishonor in the eyes of her neighbors would be the inevitable result. Why did God do that?”
I like the article very much. I really do not believe there was any way to avoid putting Mary in an awkward situation - if God’s Son was to be virgin born - if God’s Son was to be fully God, and yet fully human as well, how could this situation be avoided? It could not.
I don’t think it would be possible to avoid scandel either, even if God had revealed this to the entire village (Nazareth probably numbered less than a 1000 people - some say only around 80 people in Jesus’ time!), it was such a small number that rumors would probably still have circulated that Jesus’s birth was questionable.
Re: Probably after the birth of John, Mary, then three months pregnant, returns to her home in Nazareth where her family and Joseph, the man to whom she is betrothed, await her. In all likelihood, none of the people in Nazarethincluding Joseph and her own familyare yet aware that Mary is pregnant.
The next thing we know, Joseph and Mary are required by the census of Caesar Augustus to relocate to Bethlehem. Where this move falls in the chronology of events is not clear.
The most likely reading of the gospel accounts is that their journey to Bethlehem happens shortly after Marys return from Elizabeths home. If so, then Mary leaves Nazareth with Joseph before any of her family and neighbors know of her pregnancy. And, indeed, it may very well be that Mary and Joseph arrive in Bethlehem before Joseph knows that Mary is pregnant, four or five months before the baby Jesus will be born.”
Ok, I think the writer is mistaken in his assumption that Joseph was not aware that Mary was pregnant, or that he did not know that her pregnancy was due to a miracle from God, before they went to Bethlehem.
The implication in Matthew 1:18-24 and Luke 2 is that Joseph was fully aware of her pregnancy and the miraculous circumstances surrounding her pregnancy prior to his taking her with him to Bethlehem.
The time when Joseph became aware of her pregnancy seems to be on Marys return from visiting Elizabeth, according to Luke 2:4-5, but it could have occurred before she left for Elizabeth’s we just do not know.
We also do not know how much time passes from her return from Elizabeths home to when the decree from Augustus is made. In addition, we do not know how much time passes following Marys return before she and Joseph leave for Bethlehem, but I think it is obvious that Joseph knew about Marys condition and the circumstances of it before they leave for Bethlehem..
The angel tells Joseph that Marys story regarding her pregnancy was true and that he should not be afraid to complete their marriage plans. Matthew only says that Joseph waited until after Jesus birth to consummate their marriage this also fits in with Lukes account in chapter 2 that Joseph took his betrothed wife to Bethlehem.
None of this means that he was unaware of her pregnancy or was unaware of the miraculous circumstances of it before leaving for Bethlehem.
Also, I disagree that Mary and Joseph could have been in Bethlehem two or three months before the birth takes place. If they were living in Bethlehem that long before Jesus was born, then why didn’t they have a place to stay? That just doens’t make sense. No, the passages in Luke clearly implicate that they had newly arrived in Bethlehem, her labor begins, and they have no place to be, no room, no house, no nothing.
It also makes no sense that Joseph would bring a very pregnant Mary along with him to Bethlehem, unless he was fully aware of Mary’s condition and the possible religious/moral/social stigma retaliation that might occur if he left her in Nazareth alone. I think Joseph knew he had to bring her along, even though it would be a difficult journey for Mary physically, because leaving her behind in Nazareth could put her in a very dangerous situation.
For these reasons I think the writer is stretching the facts way too much to say that Joseph was ignorant of what was going on.
His point about Josephs courage and honor in sharing in Marys scandal are well taken and true, but, as I said, I do not believe he was unaware of what was happening prior to Bethlehem.
The Cross was all about judgment, not shame.
The sins of all mankind were imputed to Christ on the Cross and He was judged for them.
He wasn’t shamed on the Cross. On the contrary, He remained obedient to the Plan of God the Father when He went to the Cross, so He wasn’t shamed. He was judged and suffered the penalty of sin.
Dear brother in Christ Cvengr,
Please read the following passage.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”
My amplification follows.
Jesus took on all sin, received the punishment we all deserve, and is our substitutionary sacrifice. That being said, at the moment when Jesus said “Father, why hast thou forsaken Me?” - it’s because at that moment, Jesus had placed on him the full weight of all the sins of man, from Adam’s time, to the last sin of man in the end times.
What could pay for such a almost infinite amount of sin? Only the blood of an infinite God, humbled to become as a man, unto death on the cross.
Jesus, the Alpha and Omega, the one who knows the beginning from the end (Infinite Wisdom), Jesus, who created the universe from nothing, and holds it together to this day (Infinite Power), who humbled Himself, to become a man, even to death on cross, to save us while we were yet sinners (Infinite Love).
If it was the blood of God, then it wasn’t a substitutionary atonement for the sins of humanity. It was the blood of Jesus Christ, in His humanity, who was judged in His humanity for all human sins.
IMHO, the entire article makes several premises appealing to a worldly system prior to simple faith in what God provides.
The article attempts to substitute shame and emotion for God’s Perfect Justice.
It attempts to label the birth of Christ as a scandal, rather than a fulfillment of His Plan.
It appeals to man-made authority independent of God or sharing in His power as it’s primary object of faith, instead of faith through Christ in Him.
The are many true positions stated in the article, but their summaries all promote placing faith in many different counterfeit substitutes for His Plan and our relationship with God through faith in Christ.
A slight correction. We witness from the quote of our Lord Christ Jesus, that at that moment, Jesus Christ had suffered a spiritual death from God the Father. That death was a consequence of the judgment of all humanity's sins being imputed to Jesus Christ on the Cross. Christ accepted the burden of that imputation and was judged by the Perfect Judgment of the Perfect Righteousness of God the Father.
Once those sins were judged, God the Father was free in His grace to give the human spirit back to Christ via the Holy Spirit and to resurrect the body into the resurrection body as the First Fruits.
Cursed, yes, but this is a different meaning than shamed.
The only shame implied in the Roman and Jewish treatment of our Lord Christ Jesus was based upon a counterfeit substitute to God's Plan in a worldly system of governance.
Even when the mobs spat upon Him, our Lord recognized their sin in judging Him and confusing Him for being sinful by praying to God the Father that He might forgive them for they knew not what they did.
Just beautiful. Thank you for posting.
What I think is interesting in Crabtree's analysis is the timeline and the predicament of Joseph. While perhaps there is some speculation into exactly when events took place, we know from scripture that
2) Joseph and Mary obviously arrived in Bethlehem when it was obvious that she was with child but they were not yet married.
3) But, more important, Joseph did not choose the best path that would have cleared his name. Instead, he was willing and obedient to God's calling.
Shame is not like judgement. Judgement flows from an individual in an official sense, while shame is a general sense of reproach and can be formed corporately and amongst a group.
You should not blame the Roman and Jewish authorities for the treatment of our Lord. He did not. He forgave them. Do you realize that what they did, they fulfilled scripture, and that without it, mankind would be lost? Also, Jesus died for OUR sins. It was, in effect the entirety of mankind that crucified Jesus. His blood is on all our hands, just as the guilt of Adams’s sin is on us as well.
Is it possible to get some clarification as to what was wrong with my comment #9 on this thread? Pulling the comment may be legitimate, but unless I know what was wrong with it I am likely to make the same mistake again.
No reason was logged and I did not see anything wrong with the post, so I restored it.
I’m so tempted to post today’s xkcd.com but I won’t.
Yes, an excellent article. It explains salvation very well.
True. This is why the article preaches a false gospel. The Cross was not about shame, it was all Judgment.
You should not blame the Roman and Jewish authorities for the treatment of our Lord. He did not. He forgave them.
This is a subtle introduction of a false accusation. Blame has not been entered into the discussion in post #19.
Identification of sin is requisite before forgiveness. Our Lord, Christ Jesus, recognized sin when manifest to Him. He then identified that to God the Father, when He requested the Father forgive that sin. Until the work of the Cross was finished, Judgment was performed by God the Father.
The work of the Cross was Judgment, not forgiveness. The judgment allows a righteous God to justly forgive.
This is a fundamental difference between Christianity and other religions and stressed in the Tabernacle rituals of worship. The Perfect Justice of God is also a major stumbling block to Islam.
A common stumbling block to those drawn to Christ is confusing emotion for salvation. The article promotes this confusion by preaching a false gospel of shame as the work of the Cross.
The term "shame" is defined in the Greek as "dishonor". It is used in several places:
Heb 12:2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
From the article:
The entire blasphemous article.
Jesus Christ is not a sinner. Even the Scripture presented defeats the premise of the article.
(2) Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
If the article were true, the Scripture would indicate Christ accepted the shame, but to the contrary He never accepted the shame, but patiently persevered through the ordeal, despising the shame. He was anything other than shamed by the ordeal, although many who do not believe think he was shamed in His thinking on the Cross.
His focus was upon His obedience to the Will of the Father and fulfillment of His Plan.
The judgment is forensic. Christ didn’t sin, nor did He become a sinner, but the sins of the world were imputed upon Him and the penalty of death executed as evidenced when Christ cried out, “Why have you forsaken me?”.
This strategic victory in the angelic conflict manifests the genius of God’s Plan. By remaining true to God the Father, God executed the penalty of sin for all mankind in one.
Where on earth does this author state Jesus is a sinner? Paul states that Christ did become sin for us:
2Co_5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
It is this sin that is shame before God. It is our shame that Christ bore.
The third paragraph of the article is a false gospel. It is not the Gospel Paul preached. It is closer to spiritual pornography.
Those who come to Christ through faith in Him, rejoice in the work of the Cross.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
He took OUR sins and nailed it to HIS cross. All our sins, shame, reproach was laid on Christ our Lord. This is the great and merciful sacrifice of God the Son. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin. And that includes all the baggage that goes along with it. This is what the early fathers believed and it's the gospel.
And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour (sic:shame), which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: By his stripes we were healed, and The Lord delivered him for our sins, with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee. - Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica, X.1
Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 3:3 (ACD, vol. 3, p. 108)
The people were liable to punishment since they had not fulfilled the whole Law. Christ satisfied a different curse, the one that says, Cursed is everyone that is hanged on a tree. Both the one who is hanged and the one who transgresses the Law are accursed. Christ, who was going to lift that curse, could not properly be made liable to it, yet he had to receive a curse. He received the curse instead of being liable to it, and through this he lifted the curse. Just as, when someone is condemned to death, another innocent person who chooses to die for him releases him from that punishment, so Christ also did.
This, the catholic faith (sic: not to be confused with Catholic faith) has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo deaththat is, the penalty of sinwithout sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death. (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, chap. 7)
Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John 2:1 [ACD vol. 3 p. 12]
For he sends his own Son, who in his nature is changeless and unalterable and wholly unacquainted with sin, in our likeness, in order that, just as through the first disobedience we became liable to divine wrath, so through the second we might both escape the curse and do away with the ills that proceeded from it.
But it's apparent that we have differing views of what pornography is.
I applaud those who recognize He died for our sins.
Our Lord and Savior did not become a sinner, nor did he wallow in shame and guilt when He was on the Cross.
The article confuses the temptation of sinners before an angry God, who have a tendency to view God from the viewpoint of unrighteousness, anticipating fiery indignation, instead of the perspective of Jesus Christ who disregarded shame, for the joy available in remaining obedient to God the Father.
Obviously He bore the sins of all mankind, past, present, and future, when He was judged on the Cross.
He wasn’t shameful in His actions or thinking or in His spirit. Throughout the process, He remained faithful to God the Father.
You have not provided ONE specific reference where the author supposedly makes this claim. Please let me know when you do.
The article confuses the temptation of sinners before an angry God, who have a tendency to view God from the viewpoint of unrighteousness, anticipating fiery indignation
While some may view God as "wrathful" or "vengeful", I do not. God wrath or vengenace is a manifestation of His righteous judgment displayed on an uncaring populace that has gone too far in reprobation.
instead of the perspective of Jesus Christ who disregarded shame, for the joy available in remaining obedient to God the Father.
This is not what Isaiah says:
Isa 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turnedevery oneto his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
BTW-It's odd that you're using the term that Christ was shamed when you made such a point against that with this author. Don't you see the contradiction in your view between your two statements?
instead of the perspective of Jesus Christ who disregarded shame
He wasnt shameful in His actions or ...